‘Organisation Development’s (OD) goal is an inspiring and effective organisation’.

We can view OD as perspective: a way of looking at people and organisations and posing provocative, searching, stretching questions, e.g. ‘When you look at this person, team or organisation, what do you see?’; ‘What are you (and others) noticing and not-noticing?’; ‘What stands out to you (and to others) as important and valuable here – and why?’

We can view it as critically-reflexive: a way of surfacing and testing oft-hidden personal, cultural-systemic and contextual beliefs, values and assumptions, e.g. ‘How are you (or are others) construing this situation, e.g. via metaphor/narrative?’; ‘What enabling or limiting assumptions are we making here?’; ‘Who or what is influencing who or what – and how?’

We can view it as reframing: a way of re-thinking and creating paradigm shifts, e.g. by viewing a situation through different frames (e.g. psychological; political; financial; legal-regulatory); flipping between vantage points, e.g. personal; team; organisation; other stakeholders; shifting the conversation from problem-solving to innovative solutions-focus.

We can view it as co-creative: a radically-relational way of working, high in support and challenge, that engages diverse people and teams in powerful conversations that engender shared focus, insight, energy and action. It involves listening, visioning, influencing and sense-making as collaborative ventures, releasing talent-potential and building trust.​What’s your experience of OD? What has it looked like? What difference has it made?

‘Of course.’ I can hear you thinking. ‘Tell us something we don’t already know.’ Or, perhaps – and quite reasonably so – you are wondering what on earth I am talking about. If, by chance, I have spiked your curiosity, let me break it down into 3 parts that form important ingredients of inspiring and effective conversations at work: worthwhile; elephants; make it real. It’s about a degree of focus and quality of contact that can release energy, engender engagement and achieve great results.

First: worthwhile. ‘If we were to be having a really useful conversation, what would we be talking about?’ (Claire Pedrick). ‘What outcome from this conversation will mean our time together will have been well spent?’ Or, ‘First things first – begin with the end in mind.’ (Stephen Covey). The aim here is to clarify goals and aspirations, test implicit assumptions and co-create focus. It addresses the question: ‘Of all the things we could spend time doing together, what would make this valuable?’

Second: elephants. ‘The most valuable thing any of us can do is find a way to say the things that can’t be said.’ (Susan Scott). It’s about naming the proverbial elephants in the room or, in Gestalt, speaking the unspoken, saying the un-said. ‘What are we not talking about that, if we were to talk about it, would release fresh insight and energy in this conversation…and in this relationship too?’ This is an invitation to ‘radical candour’ (Kim Scott), to practise courage, disclosure and openness.​Third: make it real. ‘What matters most to you in this?’ It’s about being real…doing real…avoiding an unhelpful, distracting dance around the most important questions and issues in the room. Cultural complexities surface here: how to hold conversations that are open and honest and, at the same time, respectful of different cultural nuances and norms. The core principle here is ‘challenge with support’ (Ian Day & John Blakey): having the conversations we need to have to move things forward.

I took part in a fascinating workshop with Richard Gold this week. Richard is a Lego Serious Play facilitator who uses Lego as a colourful, creative, engaging and experiential tool to raise awareness, evoke insight and generate ideas with individuals, teams and groups. The method involves touching, moving, doing – physically – rather than simply talking about. It is a fun, visceral method that plays with metaphor and imagination and invites experimentation and team collaboration.

At each stage of the process, Richard offers minimal guidance, simple prompts, then asks in provocative spirit, ‘Is that sufficiently unclear?’ What a great question. It creates optimal space for serendipitous new experiments, insights and ideas to surface and evolve without being directive or prescriptive. It provides just-enough; inviting team participation, courage and co-creation. It reminds me of Henry Mintzberg’s ‘emergence’ – take a step forward and see what comes into view.

So that got me thinking about leadership, OD, coaching and training. There are situations where directive and prescriptive interventions are entirely appropriate. Yet how often – perhaps in our desire to impress, be helpful or achieve the outcomes we hope for – do we exercise too much control over the person, task or process? How often, in doing so, do we limit the potential for personal/team initiative, ownership, discovery and innovation? Are you sufficiently un-clear?